Does anybody still use mechanical hard drives?

To play Devil's Advocate, you could buy a 1.5TB or 2TB mechanical drive for ~$100 and certainly 3TB, maybe 4TB for ~$200, compared to just 128GB/256GB for the SSDs. So it's a matter of priorities and requirements. Some people really love the performance boost of the SSD and wouldn't mind the high $/GB, though some also need a lot of storage space for massive file collections and such.

 

Yep, definitely, it's just personal choice based on cost, performance, storage size, and perceived reliablity. It's probably a little bit of a pointless thread, but I suppose it's kind of fun posting in it anyway!

 

I'm guessing that people with two hard drive slot drives or more tend to have an SSD + HDD setup and those with only one drive slot will tend to focus more on a larger SSD. I've learned in this case that there are some who will opt for a large SSD that will seem expensive to most. This is perfectly fine as we're all here with our own choices and It's clear that you don't need to be rich to be a person spending on a large SSD. I've got a friend who purchased a large 960GB SSD and for me this is overkill in my book as prices are still very high. This is also pretty much okay that he's got one as it makes him happy and this makes me happy for him. :thumbsup:

 

Now-a-days, I'm pretty much focusing on small SSDs for any future systems I get, considering that I'm about half-way finished with my home server project, so no real need for massive local storage capacity.

 

I remember when hard drives first came out, 10MB then 20MB drives. They were very expensive so many people just continued with their floppy drives. Then as time went by and prices came down many moved onto hard drives while still using a floppy drive but that floppy drive was so slow compared to a hard drive. Now days after having used SSD's, using a system with hard drives leaves me sitting there thinking, why is this taking so long lol.

IOW I think it's only a matter of time as to when you'll be using them too Qing Dao.
.

 

I do. Translation: some of us have to work for a living.

As to the potential of unlimited income. With some its so high it might as well be. The again, its all relative isn't it? For most of the world, just having a car is a luxury. Let alone two.

Now back to the drives. Sure an SSD is faster and more rugged, but like all things there is a point of diminishing return. Is it 8X faster? Not quite.

But like someone already mentioned, we know for sure the long term durability of the HDD so there's no guessing there. With an SSD its still pretty theoretical.

Fro now, my HDDs out number my SSD 3 to 1. The best bang for the buck and a safe number for me, for now.

 

I've had far more HDD failures than SSD failures (zero) so far, but that's to be expected since I've only been using SSD's heavily for about 2 years. However in that same 2 years I've had an external HDD that died from a tipping onto its side.

 

No SSD failures so far, but i've had countless flash drives fail on me, and about 2 hard drive failures. This being said, the hard drive failures only occured because the laptops were dropped.

 

Except hard drives had 10x the capacity of floppies back then, whereas hard drive these days have 20x more capacity than a SSD of the same price.

Also there is no point for me storing my collection of movies, pictures and music on a SSD.

This being said, my 7200RPM Raid 0 desktop still takes far longer than my SSD'ed laptop to start up, like 45 seconds versus 7.5 seconds, both with Windows 7 and both have similar single-core performance (not multicore).

 

For laptops, I'm HDD-only. It's a combination of price-per-capacity and the fact that for what I do 90% of the time, hard drives are fast enough. I have considered going for a 240 GB SSD in the $140-ish price range. But that's still less capacity than the 320 GB, 7200 RPM hard drive I already have, and I don't use my laptop very often these days. It's difficult to argue that the upgrade's really worth it as a result.

I have considered going with a 240 GB SSD instead of an 80 GB SSD in my desktop, since the 80 GB one is too small to install much on. But after swapping out a 5400 RPM drive for a 7200 RPM drive last summer, the hard drive performance itself got a nice boost. So it doesn't really seem necessary.

 

The second line is a understatement nowdays of massive data hungry files and one will not dispute that it take shorter time to fill a drive then one thinks.

Keeping feeding that line would ya. Not all Laptop comes with Dual drive bays only higher version have that option and middle class laptop come with one bay and some don't have a optical drive anymore so your option become more and more limited.

I agree this is good to have but one needs to remember two bays makes the laptop bigger aka 17" or so and along with that comes a increase in size and "Weight". So having two drives comes with consequences in having two bay.

But I like to remind that anything electronics will fail regardless of how durable one like to think-that is the nature of electronics device nothing last forever and proper care during operation and blowing out the dust bunnies will keep the heat down as heat is also a killer of either HDD or SSD overheating enough and that will take a toll on any hardware. As to the price well you get what you pay for and if you want Alienware that is the price one has to pay to play and unless you get a used Alienware you going to either buying Alienware or another brand but if you specs are of high performance laptop then your going to pay premium price for it there no way around it.

 

None the option fits, running 2 x SSD and 2 spinner.
Running 6 other machine/htpc in the household each with single SSD. Price hmmph, 4 x 64GB @30per, 1 x 64gb c300 @90, 1x 120GB hyperx @60.

For non gamer, I don't really see how one really need more than 128GB with maybe monthly mantainment. At least in places where internet is capable of streaming any content.

Reliability wise, SSD is flash after all, and flash is ...flash.

 

nah that would be the minimum the best would be to have at least a 250G SSD but if one is watching streaming and doing work they should invest in SSD 500g if affordable otherwise if they want more storage HDD are currently 1tb right now. And SSD I think there is 1tb but those are outrageous prices right now only for business archiving purpose that can afford it. One must remember people buy computer and say to themselves they won't fill up the HDD or SSD but guess what 6 month down the line and they are wondering why it is slowing down after clearing the cache or temp files it's because their space to usage capacity was never in their fore thought of what will happen. This is the reason one should get a larger HDD just for this reason even if they won't fill it they got the extra head room-pic/music/video/home videos are getting bigger and bigger so a 128 SSD with O/S Windows 7 will be only 100 with formatting and that leaves very little left at least expect Office 2013 to take another 10-20Gig and that leave you 80gig SSD left so there you have it so your logic is not very good for the masses should they need more space they got only 80gig to play with and that will never hold up in this day and age of massive media files. This is the middle scenario that I can think of IMO.

 

I agree with what's been said, but my only gripe reliability wise is that you don't really get any warning signs when an SSD is going to fail. Platter drives tend to whine about their old age well in advance of a failure typically. Other than that there is virtually no reason not to go SSD besides cost. And even that is beginning to even out.

 

I think my next computer about a year from now will have to be something 15 inches with two hard drive bays, an optical drive bay, and a slot for a mSata SSD. That way having an SSD won't sacrifice any big storage mechanical drive, and I could get 3 2TB drives into RAID 5. At least that is my plan. I could probably do it for $1500 or so.

My issue is that you seem to act like only a vagabond wouldn't consider spending $5-600 on a 1TB SSD. I simply made a thread talking about people's preferences in the drives they equip their laptops with. I'm happy for you that you seem to think mechanical drives are more fragile than snowflakes and that $600 is chump change.

Actually there are 1.5TB 9.5mm tall drives out right now from Hitachi. Samsung has released 9.5mm tall 1.5TB and 2TB drives as well, but they are not yet available to buy retail. I presume the next big jump in SSD's will be to 2TB, but when that will be and how much they cost are anybody's guess. Still too rich for a vagabond like me though.

 

I'm saying I don't find 500-600 dollars that expensive, especially if one needs it (I know plenty of people with .5-1 TB SSDs who do video editing). If you are a home user, then 500 GB probably isn't necessary. But a 128-256 GB SSD boot drive + HDD isn't that much more money, 128 GB SSDs are under 100 dollars, and the benefits clearly outweigh the "cons".

I repair computers for a living. I would say at my old tech shop, 50% of the tickets were for bad hard drives (of ~250-300 computers in the shop). That's pretty alarming, and forgive me if you think I'm nuts that HDD's don't die.

 

mechanical for me, don't really need the "speed," i guess i decided after a while of thinking about it, doesn't really make sense, i think people are just a little impatient and most buy it just because it is available, it's great for older computers, but unless your profession calls for it, a normal hard drive is good enough if you are running a newer system,faster load times are great and all but when does that really become an issue where i need that speed especially for most of us consumers? unless i am saving people's lives when i open up my laptop to do my homework or check facebook and time is of the essence, i think i will stay with mechanical till it becomes necessary to switch and they figure out a recovery solution. recovery is far more important to me than anything else, i do backup my drives regularly in separate locations etc, but like mentioned above, SSD gives without warning...which could mean a lot for my job and school work, till then mechanical for me.

edit: i might consider in the next laptop i purchase with a bay slot to run a mechanical + ssd set up, just put only the OS on the SSD and major programs but no data. but that still isn't really appealing to me.

 

For laptops, I mostly see SSDs are a reliability/durability solution more than a speed solution, but obviously the faster speed is a good thing. A little less important a factor, but we all have limited time in our lives, so the faster I/O of a SSD allows us to do more in our lives, which (depending on the individual) is valuable enough to justify a SSD based on that alone.

 

i see the reliability concern with moving parts and a mobile solution, but doesn't lenovo stop hdd activity when the laptop is tilted/moved? i don't see that to be a concern if that is the case, since all i use is lenovo, maybe other brands do too, but i have been really lucky with mechanical hard drives, failure rates depend on manufacture too, i've been running some for 5-6 years without changing, i know i am really pushing my luck but those laptops aren't anything serious to me. i may be stubborn and regret it later on.

 

Not all manufacturers have software that does that.

 

SSD's for video editing ? I'm iffy on that one.

Right now, 3x 4TB 7200RPM drives = 160$x3 = 480$

That's good enough for 8TB of RAID 5 goodness (the advantages of increased speed for footage + parity) while still being cheaper, and a lot easier to replace if something decides to fail.

However you can't go wrong with a SSD as a boot drive. Add in a 128GB SSD to the above and you are still under 600$.

In case you nag me for saying this is a "laptop" forum, i will let you know that you can put 3 hdd's in most 17 inch laptops that support a caddy and then use Msata/M.2 for the OS drive.

80$ 1TB 7200RPM Laptop HDD: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822145875

Buy 3 of those and a crucial M5, shove those in your Dell M6x00 and call it a day.

My 2 cents.

 

If speed is of the essence, then I don't see why not. When you charging people 100-200 an hour, the cost of a large SSD is quickly mitigated.

 

True, though for 600$, i'd still grab 2x512GB in Raid 1, when dealing with precious company footage you don't want anything to go wrong at the last minute

 

I actually know of a couple people who edit videos for a living, they use like a massive 4-12 TB RAID 0 array for a scratch disk. Why anyone would storage data for even a minute on a RAID 0 mechanical disc array boggles the mind.

 

I actually get mad and want to smash the desktop at work whenever I`m forced to use it. It have a HDD. Its like sitting with a 66MHz computer when you know there exists 3GHz computers today. :/

 

so that they can scream at IT guys?

 

Start the computer, load all your programs into RAM. Initial startup is longer, but everything is snappier afterwards.

This being said, even though our campus computers only have Core 2 Duos and 7200RPM mechanicals, they are surprisingly snappy.

 

I still use hard drives for my primary storage; the SSD in my notebook is just for the operating system and programs.

Hard drives are a reliable technology and perform well enough provided you don't ask too much of them - same mentality pretty much goes for anything else.

I might go SSD-only when prices per GB get comparable to mechanical drives.

 

Last laptop was SSD only. Current one is a 250gb SSd and 750GB mechanical. Nice to have lots of storage cheap too

 

The thing is they are only fast if you have the programs open. If you shut down programs and a hour later you need to use the program again, the cache might be gone from the RAM and you have to reload it again.

The boot time.
The time it takes to start the programs.
The shut off time.
The time it takes to search files on the HDD
The clickity noise from the HDD

Im spoiled by using SSD exclusively on my systems all this time. Its probably not so bad for HDD users, but once you go SSD you cant go back.

 

Don't they keep them turned on 24/7? No boot/shutdown times to deal with.

That's what my campus does, though we're also running Sandy Bridge.

 

Every program launches faster once it's cached into the RAM.

The engineering programs I use at school may take 15-30 seconds to launch, while they'll launch in 2 or 3 seconds on my laptop. HDDs are great for inexpensive storage of large amounts of data, but I wouldn't own another computer without a SSD as the main drive. Even those mSata "cache drive" setups are too slow IMO. I don't like waiting for anything. Even my flash drive (Adata Elite 32GB, it's phenomenal) reads at 180MB/s and writes at 45MB/s.

I have built a few computers for my work (all SSD based), and the few lucky employees that have them still thank me more than a year later for building such a fast machine for them. They're non computer people but notice when programs launch in fractions of a second instead of a few seconds like before.

 

I'm with you on that one. Aren't computers supposed to wait on us rather than the other way round? But perhaps it gives people the chance to go make some coffee I suppose.

 

Once warmed up, my personal Keurig makes a cup of coffee in like 15 seconds, so no I don't like to wait.

 

Sorry, but the keurig machine has pushed me over the edge into old man rant territory.

I'm all for things being fast and convenient. I don't consider myself an elite techie, but I do think I am a bit more educated in technology than the common person (admittedly, not hard to do). I have an ssd, and I appreciate it's speed and efficiency. With that being said, we are talking about seconds here. Seconds. For games and computer programs. I'll switch over to SSD as main storage when capacities increase and prices drop to within a 10-15% premium of HDDs because again, while fast, we are talking about SECONDS here. 1tb SSD storage at $500-$600 compared to 1TB HDD 7200 rpm for less than $90 (and that's 2.5 in form, not a cheaper 3.5 form factor) to save SECONDS?

As for the keurig, I know people love them and I am not trying to cast personal aspersions, but I view them as one of the silliest and most useless inventions to ever grace this green earth. Designing an entire machine to operate on tiny little plastic pods filled with instant coffee is such a gargantuan waste and misappropriation of resources and energy that I have developed a pathological hatred of those things. Get yourself a quality double walled metal thermos (I recommend Nissan made ones), make yourself a large pot of coffee via brew over or press (whichever you prefer, either is infinitely superior to any kind of machine), and enjoy.

 

You like your coffee tasting like crap instead?

 

All those speeds are good to have but my start up and shutdown isn't slow by any means on my HDD laptop and desktop so not sure where your getting all test results from. A faster processor and more RAM would improve your boot time and access as well so it not just the SSD that affect performance. Seach for HDD does take a few but then again HDD are for archiving purpose especially if you have lots of data to store to being with one should "Index" their HDD to improve search. The noise I be more concerned with in HDD is the click of death other then that noise from the HDD shouldn't be of much concern unless you didn't mount the drive securely then your going to hear noise when it starts this is why one needs to properly secure their HDD a moving drive is a sure fire why to shorten it lifespan because it is jarring rather then spinning is recipe for a drive to fail. So there is my short life story....

Same here it's those that abuse their hardware and don't either delete or use something like CCleaner to remove junk or temp files that slow drivers down thus will soon create a dead drive instead of a maintained drive. Also I hadn't had much problem with HDD failures of late. No HDD will last but one needs to know how to take care of it just like anything like for example "Your Car/Truck" take care of it and they body could rust out from old age or salt but the internal are still going strong-so the lesson here is if you do the maintainance it will last alot longer then you think and with any electronics it can last years or fail the next day that is the nature of electronics but also the owner and how they take care of it that will also extend or shorten it's lifespan.

For everyday users unless time is money or SSD high capacity is on the cheap or comes with the laptop then go for it otherwise for Business/Government SSD has it's benefits and that is the only real place I can see where money/access/performance is needed the most to get to and access data fast. Otherwise everyday users HDD has suffice so far for me these days both laptop and desktop. But if one thinks about it a ubber fast Intel and lots of Ram will also increase your access speed as well so just saying SSD is fast isn't the whole story here.

That's kinda the back story that does happen and not on the scale that a HDD would do but then without a history of the drive operation that is hard to know as well but that when it does go it will take everything but with a HDD you still have chance get your data before all is lost. IMO

Sounds more like your users abuse their hardware and have the money to spend sounds more the likely the story here.

Same here it's isn't about speed but what best fits my needs and SSD is one but apart of factors in the hardware system that has to work in unison to make everything work as one and a SSD by itself paper weight doesn't nothing. That is the most important for me at the end "recovery" can you recover data from dead SSD as compared to HDD when your important data is on there is one thing we need to ask HDD from my experience was able to get it back and working to remove the data before it finally it took the fritz on me.

I think they equated two different hardware performance thinking it's just the SSD. Faster processor more RAM and dedicate GPU RAM or RAM shared but more RAM then typical would all be others factors boosting performance. So the story your telling here is really not the whole story of performance in these days where you can build a fast Intel based processor that would burn the books off the stacks and isn't only due to the SSD. So this sounds all good in all but is lacking in content to the story. Anything can be make to be ludicrous speed fast but your making the story to fascinating. I have to admit seconds...that is really hard to buy something that is seconds when the other hardware are fast enough to load especially if your processor is top line and Ram is max out will speed the boot and load processor on par with SSD as it only stores and recalls data it's the work of the processor to get everyone in line and slow processor isn't going to make a SSD any faster.

 

You don't have to use store-bought K-Cups. You can easily use your own grinds in the machine with an empty, reusable K-Cup (which is what I do about half the time, whenever I have fresh coffee).

Personally, I love mine since one of the mistakes I make all the time is to put too much or too little grind in a regular machine, whereas these are pretty consistent. Which is great for me, since I mainly need my coffee whenever I'm about to walk out the door and drive to campus (where the speed of a Keurig means something).

Anyway, coffee's a bit off-topic, and now I want a cup :/.

 

Or one can do that Neanderthal way...just munch down the coffee that will spike your caffeine rush ......no machine needed or wasting of water just the water to wash it down.....

 

You don't use an SSD for time-savings on load time. You use an SSD for improved computing experience as a result of decreased latency when multitasking.

It's the same reason why a broadband internet connection is superior to a 56K dial-up modem. Outside of large downloads, you could make the narrow argument that broadband internet is a waste of money, because you are just paying for your web pages to load a few seconds faster. But what you really pay for is a significantly improved overall internet experience.

Once you use broadband, you can never go back to dial-up. Once you use an SSD, you can never go back to mechanical HDD for OS / apps / game loads.

 

That's the thing. I don't see that much of a difference. Now, part of that could come down to my usage patterns. I am by no means a power user. However, most people aren't power users, which means my usage patterns of gaming, web browsing, and light work is comparable to the majority of users out there. Again, I don't disparage the speed of SSDs, I am simply pointing out that their main advantage A) Isn't that great and B) The price premium is, to me, outrageous. Whether we are focusing on boot times, load times, multiple app use, etc, we are still looking at time savings of SECONDS. At $0.10 - $0.15 per GB, I am in. At current prices, I find SSDs to just as outrageous as a Keurig

 

Two totally opposite technology and the difference between Dial-Up to Fiber is night and day. HDD and SSD the differences is seconds...not a very complete picture. As I stated Fast Intel and lots of RAM will do far more to improve HDD/SSD access time. So you are comparing Apples to Oranges that doesn't do Fiber a truly revolution in leaps and bounds that brings truly high speed broad band to the mass that can get connected. And remember not all places can get Fiber so your analogy is kinda construed to those living only where there if Fiber or Cable to have high speed and leaving the others behind. The last line is very false in itself....since not everyone is created equal to get broadband so this line is also not the complete picture.

 

The only "times" that I'm concerned with when it comes to SSDs are the "poof times" when all of one's data enters the black hole...in a split second.

 

I don't see why storage capacity on an SSD matters.

The content that sucks up storage capacity is going to be bulk media (videos, photos, music, pr0n). That type of bulk-storage content belongs on slow, inexpensive mechanical HDDs, because speed doesn't matter. An MP3 or MKV Blu-Ray rip will play back equivalently well on a fast SSD or a slow 5400rpm drive. You want to use your SSD capacity for only content where load times are a factor (OS, games, applications).

Now, there is an argument to be made regarding SSDs and laptops that only have a single 2.5" SATA storage device. In those cases, a single 256GB or 512GB SSD may not have enough bulk storage capacity. But even that argument is quickly vanishing when you look at external USB storage, or newer laptops that support internal card-based storage interfaces intended for SSD use (mSATA or M.2/NGFF).

You are correct that the difference is only a matter of seconds when you're looking at single-job load times. Nobody buys a [Broadband Connection / SSD] for single-job load times. Nobody ever says:
* Look at how much faster broadband loads this single Wikipedia page full of text. You should buy broadband.
* Look at how much faster an SSD loads this single application. You should buy an SSD.

People buy [Broadband Connection / SSD] because they want a smoother, lower latency experience in high-interaction scenarios.
* Look at how much faster broadband loads these 10 web pages without slowdown. Especially when you click through multiple links and load even more web pages during your internet session.
* Look at how much faster an SSD loads these multiple applications without slowdown. Especially when multitasking and loading multiple applications during your computer use session.



You also stated: As I stated Fast Intel and lots of RAM will do far more to improve HDD/SSD access time.
I counter with: Why I love my SSD - Windows 7 boot + loading 27 applications in about 1 minute. - YouTube

That video was made in 2010, on a Core 2 Duo laptop made back in 2007. I challenge you to show me any desktop or laptop computer, of any generation, with any amount of CPU or RAM speed, with any mechanical HDD, that can beat a now-7-year-old laptop with an SSD.

We are at a point where RAM and CPU speed are well beyond the point of diminishing returns. Spending $150 on an SSD will give you far greater performance than any amount of money you could ever spend on CPU or RAM.

 

Comparing a 1TB SSD to a 1TB HDD is massively unfair. Do you need SSD storage for pictures and music? No, that's why they go on a HDD. The SSD is for the OS and applications, not storing large amounts of data. Put a 256GB mSata SSD and a 1TB HDD in your laptop and have the best of both worlds.

Opening up and modifying 200K+ line Excel docs benefits from a SSD.. There is a huge difference in speed between an HDD and a SSD for tasks like that. Looking up numbers in that 200K+ line Excel doc based on character strings also benefits greatly from a SSD.

My school has i7 3770, 16GB RAM, 1TB 7200RPM computers that I use frequently, and they still feel significantly slower than my laptop. All of the numbers on paper point towards the desktop being faster, but the SSD improves random read/writes enough that everything feels much snappier. For purely processor intensive tasks, they're quicker, but not for mild intensity engineering software. Opening up a database and searching for components in that database is much faster with an SSD.

Anybody that thinks SSDs don't offer a large improvement in performance are delusional IMO.

 

Again, for my personal use, that won't cut it. The whole point of the SSD as you pointed out, is to speed up things like games. Well, I have almost 1TB of games in my steam library. And yes, i periodically play them all depending on what mood I am in. So if I go your suggested route, whatever time I save in loading will be completely undone by having to download, install, delete the games I want to play.

As far as it not being 'fair' to compare two 1 TB drives, it is. Yes, the SSD is faster, but at 6 times the price. Is it 6 times faster? No.

Again, as stated previously, I am not a power user. I don't use the computer 'professionally'. And I, the noob that I am, represent a much larger majority of computer users as a result. IF SSDs commanded only a 10-15% premium of hdd, then it's an easy choice. At 600%, not so much.

The good news is that in time, SSD will fall to that price point. My guess is by the end of 2015, we will see 2tb SSD drives for around $300-$400. Still more expensive than I would like, but the increased capacity and a more reasonable price point makes it an easier purchasing decision.

 

With NAND storage technology only having real development in the past ~15 years, and magnetic storage being out 2x a long, it's not exactly a fair comparison. And the rates of which SSDs are dropping is spectacular, a 64 GB SLC SSD 7 years ago cost 1000, now a 1 TB SSD only costs ~600. I don't think mechanical hard drives have ever fallen such prices in that short of a time cycle. With SSDs superior durability vs mechanical drives, for normal laptops I expect mechanical drives to all but disappear once NAND gets down to ridiculously low levels where magnetic drives are at, and mechanical drives will only be used for mass storage..

 

Why don't you install your OS and applications to your SSD, and have a fast HDD for your game library? Add an mSata as a boot drive and you're set. SSD for OS and applications and an HDD for media/games is a very common configuration.

Do you need all 1TB of games installed on your SSD? If you're like most gamers, you probably have a handful of games that you play a bunch, and a bunch of games that you play periodically. If that's the case, install the frequently played games on the SSD and the less frequently played games on the HDD.

 

All about the SSD+HDD combo. I've got a 500gb hdd and 120gb ssd in my 4530s (ssd for os x and hdd for windows). Though once I get some money, I'll probably upgrade both to 250gb ssd's

 

While it's only a matter of seconds, they all add up. For instance with boot times of 40 seconds it only takes 90 reboots to lose an hour.

Think of it as if you were in your car and stuck behind someone driving at 10mph for the next hundred yards before you can get past. It's only 20 seconds right? But then a little further up the road you get stuck again behind someone driving at 10mph. Some people would get frustrated and upset while others might not mind, especially those driving at 10mph. Just a matter of preference and it's strange how that preference can be affected by the situation. You might be patient waiting 40 seconds for your laptop to boot but would you be willing to wait patiently for say 20 seconds if you were at the traffic lights and they have just turned green but the car in front of you just sits there for 20 seconds before moving?